Showing posts with label disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disease. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The New Surgeon General

Today in the New York Times there was an editorial about President Bush's appointee for the surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger (A Nominee’s Abnormal Views).

I first learned about this man from The Colbert Report, which I don't usually watch for informational purposes. Stephen Colbert made a joke about his paper "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality", saying how it was written for the United Methodist Church, the "most respected medical institution". Then Colbert told everyone that Bush had just appointed this man to be surgeon general. The audience groaned.

I don't think I need to qualify the groans for you, especially if you read his paper. (My favorite part, which basically sums up his whole argument is: "When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur.")

What bothers me beyond Bush's initial appointment, is what the New York Times editorial staff suggested to Congress:

"The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The [Senate Health Committee] should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively."

The editorial goes on to say that if Holsinger has bigoted views towards gays, he shouldn't get the appointment (Really?).

What I find disturbing is that the editorial actually sets up a defense for Holsinger by saying that he could have just been writing in line with the general consensus of the time (1991). That is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous because first, it wasn't the general consensus of the time; and second, even if it was, the consensus was wrong. Would someone who wrote "The Pathophysiology of Blacks" be able to become surgeon general, even if it were written in 1891?

By acknowledging Holsinger as a medical expert who could have been just writing in the popular zeitgiest, the New York Times gives legitimacy to Bush's appointment, which is inherently wrong and should be thrown out. Bush needs to make an appointment with respect for all American citizens.